You're a fool if you think coal locomotives will make a comeback. They'll never pass particulate pollution requirements, shipping coal is a pain, loading coal into the boiler is a pain, and the high-quality coal needed to fuel a locomotive isn't cheap. Not to mention regular stops for more water and the difficult maintenance requirements.
Also, [citation needed] on the claim they have more pulling power than a diesel and have greater fuel capacity.
[QUOTE=download;50842085]You're a fool if you think coal locomotives will make a comeback. They'll never pass particulate pollution requirements, shipping coal is a pain, loading coal into the boiler is a pain, and the high-quality coal needed to fuel a locomotive isn't cheap. Not to mention regular stops for more water and the difficult maintenance requirements.
Also, [citation needed] on the claim they have more pulling power than a diesel and have greater fuel capacity.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm sure there's other ways to generate steam other than coal because they're planning to fit Big Boy 4014 with a oil tender and I think 844 is running on oil too.
Also speaking about the Big Boys, this is a documentary Union Pacific put out in the 1950s about the Big Boy and I think the Challengers as well.
[video=youtube;HR5dEc5VeNw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR5dEc5VeNw[/video]
[video=youtube;p0ri_ciyZ98]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ri_ciyZ98[/video]
One thing about steam locomotives though is that they're cool to watch.
[video=youtube;hs6j_ZEde4o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs6j_ZEde4o[/video]
Steamers also require specialized training and an extra crewmember to keep boiler pressure up and maintain a good fire. That's extra money from the railroads in training and payroll.
Diesel locomotives are easy. I got trained to run one in a day, and I should be certified to operate on our line soon. Our steamer is crewed by a select group of guys who know how to run it and have been doing it for years.
[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;50842101]Well I'm sure there's other ways to generate steam other than coal because they're planning to fit Big Boy 4014 with a oil tender and I think 844 is running on oil too.[/QUOTE]
So, you want to trade a diesel engine running on heavy oil at ~45 to 50% efficiency for a steam engine running heavy oil that [I]might[/I] make 20% efficiency and need regular stops for water. Not going to happen.
[QUOTE=download;50842204]So, you want to trade a diesel engine running on heavy oil at ~45 to 50% efficiency for a steam engine running heavy oil that [I]might[/I] make 20% efficiency and need regular stops for water. Not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't saying that steam is better, I was saying that burning coal isn't the only way to make steam. I have no doubt diesels are superior to steam locomotives because they wouldn't have been phased out for them.
But as I said running steam locomotives are still fun and interesting to watch even though I've never seen a running one in person, in fact the only steam locomotives I've seen have been ones on static display, the ones I can think of at the moment are two switchers that are on display at two of our city parks and one I saw when I was in Omaha, Nebraska one time. 844 stopped by here a years back, but I unfortunately missed the opportunity to see it.
[QUOTE=download;50842085]Also, [citation needed] on the claim they have more pulling power than a diesel and have greater fuel capacity.[/QUOTE]
The energy capacity of coal is lower than that of diesel, both by mass and by volume. Anthracite coal, the most energetic, is 33MJ/kg or 35MJ/L, while diesel is 43MJ/kg or 36MJ/L. [I]In theory[/I] a solid hydrocarbon* should be more volume-efficient (at the cost of being less mass-efficient), but coal has huge amounts of impurities and so is inefficient at every measure except energy per dollar. There is otherwise a strong general trend of better energy-per-unit-mass having the drawback of worse energy-per-unit-volume, with hydrogen gas at one extreme, and solid graphite or metals at the other end, going through hydrocarbons from methane and natural gas, to gasoline, to kerosene/jet fuel, to diesel, to heating oil and bunker fuel.
Trains only use coal because they don't care about either mass-efficiency or volume-efficiency, at least compared to automobiles, ships, aircraft or rockets. Since those are willing to pay more for the "better" fuel, trains (and also power plants) can get coal for dirt-cheap, since there's less demand.
Pulling power is simply torque, and has much more to do with the engine than the fuel. After all, coal is used with an external-combustion engine, which doesn't actually care where the heat comes from, and if there was a steam-engine design more efficient than a diesel reciprocating engine, we would just burn diesel fuel to heat the steam instead of coal.
* Has anyone experimented with using refined solid-phase hydrocarbons as a fuel source? Burning asphalt or whatever's next up the chain? In theory, if you got had just really long, saturated hydrocarbon chains, with no sulfur or mercury or alkyls, like octadecane or something, you could get better energy density by volume than diesel. I'm not sure who would want to use it but it might have been researched anyways.
Most large ships burn asphalt. They use heat from the engine exhaust to keep the fuel warm and liquid enough for use in their very large diesel engines. It's called bunker fuel.
[QUOTE=everyone]You're a fool if you think coal locomotives will make a comeback. reasons reasons reasons[/QUOTE]
Ok that's all presuming that steam exists exactly as it was in 1930. I know what i'm talking about.
Easiest one to get out of the way is [QUOTE]Also, [citation needed] on the claim they have more pulling power than a diesel and have greater fuel capacity.[/QUOTE] All steam makes more power at speed. It's an old saying, that Steam can pull a train it could never start, and diesel will start a train it could never pull. Any electric motor's power falls off at about 30mph, going lower the faster it turns. The Pennsey T1 made 6500 horsepower at 95 Mph. The difference is that a steam engine will always have more power than it does traction to act on, so at low speed, a diesel will always have a great ability to pull, even if it doesn't have more potential power.
[T]http://puu.sh/qsyTd/01c1cf3369.jpg[/T] [T]http://puu.sh/qsyW7/09ad722749.jpg[/T]
Same graph, just rotated for convenience
As for fuel capacity, i never said they did, but as it happens they do. The [URL="http://cs.trains.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-07-48/4087.TRN_2D00_PP0515_5F00_50web.jpg"]T1's[/URL] tender was 53 foot 4 inches long, had a capacity of 85,000 pounds of coal and 19,000 galleons of water. The largest diesel ever built was [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/UnionPacific6922.jpg"]this thin[/URL]g, with a fuel capacity of 8,500 galleons of fuel. No contest. But that's irrelevant. With a condenser a steam engine from 1940 will go farther than a new diesel will on a full tank of oil.
Let's address the rest point by point
[B]Pollution, fuel and thermal efficiency:[/B] With a well designed gas producing firebox, a coal burning engine will theoretically meet the new locomotive pollution laws that went into effect last year, as well as having a far more energy efficient burn. Coupled with a Geisel, lempor or kylchap blast nozzle, the gas producer firebox was proven on La Argintina to give a boiler efficiency of over 80%, which is above an internal combustion engine.
For comparison, a diesel locomotive has a fuel in to work out thermal efficiency of 30% at the wheels. a steam engine in 1930 had about 7%. L.D. Porta's La Argintina however, in 1951 had a theoretical thermal efficiency of about 13-18% at the wheels. And that's with a "low" pressure of 285PSI, piston valves, a small superheater, no roller bearings, no feedwater heater, relatively small heating area to boiler output and on a rebuild of a 1920's design. Even at the time that number could've reached 20%, with Franklin valve gear and any feedwater heater you care to name, Elesco to Hancock. And when you consider the process of drilling, shipping, refining and transporting oil into deisel in the engine, i'd wager that's going to eat up more than the 10% in difference between fuel sources. Plus you could run a steam engine on wood, grass, natural gas or any other flammable substance. If you run an old steam engine on bio fuel, it's carbon neutral.
As for fuel cost, in 1985, C&O tested 614 against their engines in revenue service, in the worst conditions imaginable for a steam engine. -20C temperatures, a historic passenger design on modern freight, substandard coal and with no feedwater heater. And yet it still did the work of 3 EMD units at the time (which are still in use), and with only 3-6% thermal efficiency, was still cheaper on fuel than the equivilant work done by deisels. Now imagine that number comes up to 20%, and the money starts to make sense. Plus if you're selling this to a politician, no more dependancy on foreign or sands oil. The US built itself on it's coal reserves, which are still cheap and abundant, and projected to [URL="http://www.eia.gov/coal/reserves/"]last a very long time.[/URL] And if it meets EPA regulations, why not?
And finally, what happens when we hit peak oil? The options are electrify every inch of rail and road in the world, try nuclear power or go third generation steam.
[B]Steam engine are more labor intensive/costly:[/B]
in 1920? Yes. In 1950, almost.
In 1947, NYC did a test against the contemporary deisels. [URL="http://puu.sh/qszMm/ed05616ca0.pdf"]Click the link[/URL] for the full write up. But wikipedia has a TLDR table for you
[IMG]http://puu.sh/qszSc/a23e114d9c.png[/IMG]
It took three EMD E7's to match one S1. And granted, today's engines would hand an F7 it's ass, you couldn't likewise compare a modern engine to steam on a direct basis.
Norfolk and Western ran the same tests later, and came to the same conclusions. The tests ended up showing that steam was genuinely cheaper to run than Diesels, and to match the performance of an S1 would put the costs up to 130% of steam. Though as the write up showed, it was in availability that steam lost out. Which brings us to the next point
[B]Wages:[/B]
This is where old steam suffers, and the only [I]real[/I] reason steam went away. It took two or three people to run one engine. Doubleheading compounds the cost. The real killer feature of Diesel was multiple engines controlled by one guy on the front. And though they were roughly the same at the time, today the mechanical upkeep of a modern engine vs old steam would be a no contest. The constant sand blasting effect unburnt coal particles had on the inside of the boiler, as well as poor water treatment and lack of condensers meaning that the boiler would need monthly washouts, and occasional reflueing, which kept them out of revenue service.
But with modern steam? the gas producer firebox would keep unburnt particles from escaping down the tubes, the Ace 3000 proposed a condensor that would bring boiler matinence down to a yearly washout, and flue matinence down to once every 5-15 years. Add in fully sealed roller bearings on the rods and a pile of other improvements, and i promise you the cost to work/availability would equalize out to a contemporary engine. Check out Ace 3000 for a very good proposal on that
As for wages, with computers today, i garuntee that maintaining a boiler at peak effeciency and water level would be easier for an ECU than managing a car engine. Abner doble [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUg_ukBwsyo"]sold a steam car[/URL] with a fully automated steam generator, where you just turn the key and go. And that was in 1930. N&W had automatic boilered engines in 1945 on their ten wheeler shunters. It's inconceivable that steam can't be automatically controlled, or have multiple unit control
As for this
[QUOTE=papkee;50842123]Steamers also require specialized training and an extra crewmember to keep boiler pressure up and maintain a good fire. That's extra money from the railroads in training and payroll.
Diesel locomotives are easy. I got trained to run one in a day, and I should be certified to operate on our line soon. Our steamer is crewed by a select group of guys who know how to run it and have been doing it for years.[/QUOTE]
Again, in 1945, absolutely. on third generation steam? It'd be basically the same. With a gas producing firebox, The ECU wouldn't even have to deal with keeping a firebed and avoiding clinkers, since the combustion air comes above the firebed, a thicker fire is needed to "seal" the ashpan air. Plus on a thin fire, the more powerful exhaust stack the gas producer would need would lift and tear the firebed, needing a heavier fire. The stoker would just have to spray coal constantly, and keep the air supply in optimal condition. Doble did it in a car in 1930, it wouldn't be any trouble today.
Anyway, i don't even particularly care about trains, i just like steam power. The more i read into second and third generation steam, and the more i read into the underlying principals, the more convinced i am that it's just waiting for its time to come again. It won't look like a boiler on wheels or go chuffity chuffity chuff, but it will be steam.
[IMG]http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1488-640x264.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]A model of an Lockheed L-1011 airliner, in the colors of the Soviet national airline Aeroflot.[/QUOTE]
In the mid-1970s as Soviet citizens were traveling more than ever before, the Soviet Union came to the conclusion that Aeroflot, the national airline, desparately needed a widebody aircraft. Development on the homegrown Soviet widebody airliner, the Ilyushin Il-86, had stagnated due to complications with the aircraft's engine technology among other things.
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Ilyushin_Il-86,_CCCP-86015,_Aeroflot.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]An Il-86 in use by Aeroflot in the 1980s. Aeroflot, a handful post-USSR successor airlines, and China Xinjiang Airlines were the only operators of the Il-86.[/QUOTE]
As the Il-86 project continued to be stuck in development hell, the Soviets made a surprising move. They reached out to a number of American aircraft producers, exploring other options for a long-haul aircraft. Lockheed was the only company interested in dealing with the Soviets, and made the decision to send an L-1011 to Moscow in 1974. The Soviets were greatly interested in the aircraft, and not only ordered 30 of them, but wanted to produced up to 100 annually in the Soviet Union.
[IMG]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7e/b1/38/7eb1385665a4d809e6009832ff232f91.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]Rollout ceremony for the first L-1011, in 1970.[/QUOTE]
However, it soon came to light that the Soviets had no way to produce the composite fan blades the L-1011 used, and, combined with concern the L-1011 had technology banned from export to potential enemies, the deal very quickly fell apart. To add insult to injury, the USA blocked the sale of General Electric's CF6 engine to the USSR, which had been planned for use on the IL-86 and other domestic widebody aircraft. Strangely enough, had the deal gone through, the USSR would both be the largest operator of the L-1011 and produced more aircraft than Lockheed itself.
Rather than let this set them back, the USSR decided to produce their own clone of the L-1011. Most of the major aircraft producers in the USSR, including Tupolev, Antonov, Yakovlev, TANKT Beriev, and Myashishchev were all ordered to come up with designs that closely emulated the L-1011.
[IMG]http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Tu204_trijet.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/an-3181-640x480.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]Look familiar? Models of the original designs for the Tupolev Tu-204 and An-318. The An-318 was never built, and the Tu-204 design was ultimately modified and introduced a mere year before the Soviet Union fell.[/QUOTE]
Although Antonov and Tupolev proposed feasible designs, Ilyushin was able to convince the Soviet leadership that the Il-86 was not doomed and as a result every design was either thrown out or (in the Tu-204s case) modified to not compete with the Il-86. The Il-86 never lived up to its original potential, with its domestically produced engine giving it a painfully short range for a widebody aircraft and it was only in use for a few years before Western aircraft took over following the fall of the USSR.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;50842606]steam wank[/QUOTE]
You've cited practically nothing there, and what you have cited is comparisons made in the 1940s.
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
Oh, and to claim an efficiency of 80%, that's hilarious. The Nobel Prize committee will be giving you a call soon.
Most of the information isn't on the web though. If you want reading, look up "The Steam Locomotive" By Ralph Johnson, Chapleon's work, L D Porta's work, the published papers on the Ace 3000 tests, "Locomotive Performance Tests," published by N&W or Navitsky/Gabrielli, "Boiler Water Treatment, Feedwater Treatment, and Chemical Cleaning of Drum-Type Utility Steam Generators," for boiler theory.
[url]http://csrail.org/whitepapers/[/url]
there's also some good information here
Porta and Chapleon's stuff is the most helpful for the hard math, and as development for third generation steam, the gas producing firebox and kylchap/geisel/lempor exhausts in particular. There's not much out there for the Ace 3000, but that was the furthest "real" theory has been pushed, and did involve porta
And yes i did compare steam to deisel in the 30's when it was applicable to practical costs to disprove the notion that steam is inherently less powerful, more costly and not worth the effort. For the theoretical development i relied on numbers from the above sources, because outside La Argintina or the Red Devil none of it's been built.
Enough steam trains, have some shiny ass gemstones
[url=https://flic.kr/p/JSbAUB][img]https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8846/28134877603_21f0544f97_b.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/JSbAUB]20160802-IMG_9632[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/132428006@N07/]Ngoh shian Bang[/url], on Flickr
[url=https://flic.kr/p/KNqTHY][img]https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8543/28748756526_99a7f57113_b.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/KNqTHY]20160802-IMG_9630[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/132428006@N07/]Ngoh shian Bang[/url], on Flickr
I took them at a exhibit. First one is natural
I think the future of trains lies in electrified high speed rail and maglev anyway.
The main problem though, at least in the US, is getting people to use the train rather than their cars and not to mention that we've torn up a large portion of our railways in the 70s-80s when a lot of the smaller railways started to fold or merge to form companies like BNSF, CSX, and NS and there's also the problem that a lot of the railway companies have limited a lot of their lines to freight only and have "freight first" policies meaning that passenger schedules suffer as passenger trains are forced to wait on freight trains to pass. And the first issue isn't helped by the fact that in some areas politicians are trying to tear up abandoned rail lines to build hiking trails. Like with a lot of things the United States has very little foresight when it comes to transportation.
However though cars are becoming harder and harder for the average man/woman/family to obtain due to rising prices and low wages, so it is probably very likely that revenue long distance passenger services could make a eventual comeback in the United States along with an increase in public transportation usage in general, the latter of which is already being seen in the larger cities with the rise of commuter and light rail systems. Although it's going to be difficult or even impossible to rebuild a lot of the lines that have been abandoned since a lot of their grades have been destroyed or plowed over for agriculture and land development.
Although that does bring up that one story that I think happened somewhere in the Northern United States or Canada when one railway company(I think it was CN or CP) decided to reactivate a inactive line that went through a rich neighborhood where a lot of people had built their yards, patios, gardens, and ETC around the line despite the rails still being in place and everything and all of it had to be torn up which as you can imagine stirred up all sorts of shit including somebody setting fire to a bridge that was on the line.
Found it, it was an abandoned CN corridor in Vancouver, but the city bought it out and tore up the rails.
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-cprail-arbutuscorridor-1.3479343[/url]
Oil rig blown aground off the coast of the isle of Lewis, Scotland
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/3ute3k.jpg[/t]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-37007656[/url]
Pretty apocalyptic scene. I was just there a few weeks ago, shame I didn't get to see it in person.
[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;50843028]
Found it, it was an abandoned CN corridor in Vancouver, but the city bought it out and tore up the rails.
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-cprail-arbutuscorridor-1.3479343[/url][/QUOTE]
That line was such a massive fucking political debate. The neighborhood is one of the wealthiest in the area (so it's full of people who can move their weight and money around to get things done their way). They had their own agendas to say they didn't want it in their backyards (after sitting unused for 15 years, apparently). The city runs under the Vision Vancouver council who is famous for sabotaging transportation projects and corridoors to run their "bikes, walkways and greenspace" agenda which everyone fucking hates because it's removed lanes on some of the region's busiest roads, converted corridoors reserved for legacy rail expansion into walkways and shortly they'll be tearing the viaducts down and replacing them with nothing because fuck arterial routes into the downtown. Lets fuck the city while we can! I think Burnaby and New Westminster's mayors have both been quoted at one point saying Gregor Robertson is some spineless creature from space.
[t]http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploads/r/null/4/6/468334/59425e65-2981-43da-8e01-f66c6ccecbf1-A46273.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=pentium;50848364]That line was such a massive fucking political debate. The neighborhood is one of the wealthiest in the area (so it's full of people who can move their weight and money around to get things done their way). They had their own agendas to say they didn't want it in their backyards (after sitting unused for 15 years, apparently). The city runs under the Vision Vancouver council who is famous for sabotaging transportation projects and corridoors to run their "bikes, walkways and greenspace" agenda which everyone fucking hates because it's removed lanes on some of the region's busiest roads, converted corridoors reserved for legacy rail expansion into walkways and shortly they'll be tearing the viaducts down and replacing them with nothing because fuck arterial routes into the downtown. Lets fuck the city while we can! I think Burnaby and New Westminster's mayors have both been quoted at one point saying Gregor Robertson is some spineless creature from space.
[t]http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploads/r/null/4/6/468334/59425e65-2981-43da-8e01-f66c6ccecbf1-A46273.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Is that the same city where nearly everything is owned by the Chinese, or am I thinking of another Canadian city?
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Denny_Regrade-1.jpg[/t]
[t]https://sherrlock.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/dennyr-frasch-611-web1.jpg[/t]
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Leveling_the_Hills_of_Seattle.jpg[/t]
[t]https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2234/5809042842_e0e4276893_b.jpg[/t]
So I just learned about the Denny Regrade, where Seattle leveled a hill just north of downtown to make way for high density developments in what is now Belltown.
These lumps of dirt are the last remaining pieces of what used to be Denny Hill, before the whole thing was stripped away and thrown into Puget Sound
How have I never heard of such a massive engineering project as this until now? These are the kinds of things that make me convince that people in the early 20th century were totally bonkers and weren't afraid to do amazing things by abusing industry and machinery.
[QUOTE=nerdster409;50849879]Is that the same city where nearly everything is owned by the Chinese, or am I thinking of another Canadian city?[/QUOTE]
The only place left in North America where condemned homes can sell for $2.5 million in January.
[img]http://cdn3.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/980x551/public/2016/02/03/house_back.jpg?itok=8ylTtz14[/img]
And be on the market in November for $2.8 Million.
[QUOTE=pentium;50851656]The only place left in North America where condemned homes can sell for $2.5 million in January.
And be on the market in November for $2.8 Million.[/QUOTE]
I am surprised as to how there haven't been mass arson attacks against these properties considering the vast negative effects they are having on the community
Also what purpose do the actual structures serve when their dilapidation is only going to bring the property value down, if ever so slightly?
[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;50851808]I am surprised as to how there haven't been mass arson attacks against these properties considering the vast negative effects they are having on the community.[/QUOTE]
[i]That's racist.[/i] We can't go out harassing them. We can't deny them service. We can't selectively allow them into our neighborhoods. [i]We're multi-cultural.[/i]
Yeah, but they're Mainlanders. Not once in their lives have they played by the rules, so they're allowed to do all of the above with little or no media spotlighting. My first time living in Vancouver when my parents visited and on one night while trying to find a place to eat no less than three times were we turned away from chinese establishments, presumably we were not chinese. "I'm sorry, we're fully booked" my ass.
[quote]Also what purpose do the actual structures serve when their dilapidation is only going to bring the property value down, if ever so slightly? [/quote]
It's not the buildings that make the money, it's the land. The buildings are just often a way to legitimiize foreign ownership by saying someone lives at the property.
[editline]asdas[/editline]
You can tell that while what you said has not happened yet, it will eventually happen. Everyone over here is getting pretty bitter about it.
[QUOTE=pentium;50851926][i]That's racist.[/i] We can't go out harassing them. We can't deny them service. We can't selectively allow them into our neighborhoods. [i]We're multi-cultural.[/i]
Yeah, but they're Mainlanders. Not once in their lives have they played by the rules, so they're allowed to do all of the above with little or no media spotlighting. My first time living in Vancouver when my parents visited and on one night while trying to find a place to eat no less than three times were we turned away from chinese establishments, presumably we were not chinese. "I'm sorry, we're fully booked" my ass.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, what the fuck is your problem?
Canada has a huge problem with Chinese property developers buying up land, jacking the prices up to hell and not actually doing anything with it, just trading it back and forth, abusing loopholes to avoid paying tax on it.
You'd be pretty pissed too if it was almost guaranteed you'll never afford to own a house, and the government can't really legislate against it without straight up telling them to go fuck themselves
[QUOTE=kaze4159;50855202]Canada has a huge problem with Chinese property developers buying up land, jacking the prices up to hell and not actually doing anything with it, just trading it back and forth, abusing loopholes to avoid paying tax on it.
You'd be pretty pissed too if it was almost guaranteed you'll never afford to own a house, and the government can't really legislate against it without straight up telling them to go fuck themselves[/QUOTE]
That's perfectly acceptable but Pentium goes off on some like racist mini-rant at the start lol
"We can't harrass them or deny them service or choose who allow into our neighborhoods!!!!!" Yeah no shit, racial discrimination is fucking disgusting and literally illegal
[QUOTE=pentium;50851926][i]That's racist.[/i] We can't go out harassing them. We can't deny them service. We can't selectively allow them into our neighborhoods. [i]We're multi-cultural.[/i]
Yeah, but they're Mainlanders. Not once in their lives have they played by the rules, so they're allowed to do all of the above with little or no media spotlighting. My first time living in Vancouver when my parents visited and on one night while trying to find a place to eat no less than three times were we turned away from chinese establishments, presumably we were not chinese. [B]"I'm sorry, we're fully booked" my ass.[/B][/QUOTE]
they probably didn't want you shaking dandruff on other customers
[QUOTE=pentium;50851926][i]That's racist.[/i] We can't go out harassing them. We can't deny them service. We can't selectively allow them into our neighborhoods. [i]We're multi-cultural.[/i]
Yeah, but they're Mainlanders. Not once in their lives have they played by the rules, so they're allowed to do all of the above with little or no media spotlighting. My first time living in Vancouver when my parents visited and on one night while trying to find a place to eat no less than three times were we turned away from chinese establishments, presumably we were not chinese. "I'm sorry, we're fully booked" my ass.[/QUOTE]
or maybe they were fully booked and you're just racist
Did a tiny little timelapse
[vid]http://puu.sh/qvzai.webm[/vid]
It was rainy as fuck so I gave up pretty quickly
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50854893]Uh, what the fuck is your problem?[/QUOTE]
Ask any other FP member from the Pacific Northwest. It's a terrible way to sample opinions but you'll find we're all pretty desensitized and demoralized at this point. We can't afford homes. We can't afford apartments. Statistics when last taken showed the average single male stays at home with his parents until the age of 45. We know damn well what the reason is but our provincial government either cannot or refuses to act beyond small stopgaps which by this point are too little and too late.
[QUOTE=pentium;50857268]Ask any other FP member from the Pacific Northwest. It's a terrible way to sample opinions but you'll find we're all pretty desensitized and demoralized at this point. We can't afford homes. We can't afford apartments. Statistics when last taken showed the average single male stays at home with his parents until the age of 45. We know damn well what the reason is but our provincial government either cannot or refuses to act beyond small stopgaps which by this point are too little and too late.[/QUOTE]
Which all justifies being racist against Chinese people, of course
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50857454]Which all justifies being racist against Chinese people, of course[/QUOTE]
Well, no but if you believe you are so experienced in this then please explain with your own sources and words the reason why property values are so impossibly high here that if you do not already own a place your only choice is to move east?
[QUOTE=pentium;50857477]Well, no but if you believe you are so experienced in this then please explain with your own sources and words the reason why property values are so impossibly high here that if you do not already own a place your only choice is to move east?[/QUOTE]
Just because Chinese investors are buying up property doesn't give you the right to hate chinese people because their rich are fucking things up
Judging the whole by the minority is textbook racist dude
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Auxiliary Pics V BRUTALISM 𝔸 𝔼 𝕊 𝕋 ℍ 𝔼 𝕋 𝕀 ℂ
